Jump to content

FinGIAP_Kessuchkin

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About FinGIAP_Kessuchkin

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

93 profile views
  1. Hi Carl - the bad weather I refer to is rain conditions. At no point I have said it's un-flyable. I'm saying - historically operations were not flown in those conditions. Go to wikipedia and see battle of Bulge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge " The Germans had attacked a weakly defended section of the Allied line, taking advantage of heavily overcast weather conditions that grounded the Allies' overwhelmingly superior air forces. " That statement is Vague (I know) and I'm generalizing, but please - provide contradicting documentation saying that operations were flown as de facto in rain and snow. I'm not suggesting we should not fly at overcast conditions... Rain is 2 steps worse than that. If we can have weather with showers of rain - I'm still all good! And I would argue that in rain conditions we saw at the server the visibility was about than 2km - my opinion, not a fact 🙂 Just navigating in those conditions is a challenge and takes huge portion of the time of the pilot - probably the reason why there was no operations flown as pilots would get lost and separated.
  2. Lets not make this red/blue thing - for the record LLv24 plans to fly RED on the coming TAW. Sure - low visibility reduces the speed advantage BLUE fighters have as they cannot see to zoom/boom as easily. And that is not why I suggested this. Historically operations were not flown at low visibility conditions for several reasons (and I'm not going there). For me, TAW is emulating the air war war at Eastern Front - why should we try to fly operations in conditions where they were not flown historically? all-weather fighter all-weather fighter [′ȯl ¦weth·ər ′fīd·ər] (aerospace engineering) A fighter aircraft equipped with radar and other special devices which enable it to intercept its target in the dark, or in daylight weather conditions that do not permit visual interception; it is usually a multiplace (pilot plus navigator-observer) airplane.
  3. I'm with Norz on this one: Snow/Rain = bad weather. Especially when Rain/snow covers the whole map area - which typically is the case in the server. If we can have showers of rain in limited areas of the map, moving with wind - I'm ok to fly in those conditions. Some operational air activity would have been possible in real world too as some of the AFs would have been open. For Buzz: I fly this for war/tactical realism - not for the challenge of flying in bad conditions. And I still stand by my earlier statement (until otherwise proven) - in general operations were not flown in rain or snow, and therefore - that is weather realism from tactical warfare perspective.
  4. About bad weather: the airplanes at WWII can not be considered really as All Weather airplanes. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my impression that if the weather was bad - planes where grounded and nobody flew. Especially not any operations. (For example: battle of the Bulge, or Ardennes operation - Germans were successful as long as the weather stayed overcast and Allies could not bomb their panzers). Hence I suggest one removes the really bad weather from the rotation altogether. There would have little to no air activity, and this is a flight simulator - pilots would have enjoying drinks of different colors at their clubs or shelters.
  5. KOTA TS server is Full... max number of clients... 😞
  6. LLv24 is joining the Red side for this event... so far 5 pilots. I'll update the headcount as I get confirmations.
  7. 1. No it's not. When the AA is intact, it's very dangerous and challenging to get out of there alive. Fast low level attacks work - just as they did historically. I think RAF specialized on the topic (that and night time lvl bombing). Problem is that AA does not get fixed fast enough and AF is vulnerably for several map rotations in a row. 2. I partly agree - but even now, it's not a single shot or even a single pass that destroys a building. Takes 2-4 passes - and therefore typically 100+ rounds of 20mm (or larger) High Explosive rounds. I don't find that unrealistic - and it requires a lot of time over the target area, - and if that is AF, then there is a warning visible on the map (or invitation to close by defending fighters) 2 (the second 2). No. Server does not support the player numbers to make this realistic - in real life, Murmansk had one of the most dense AAs in the world - yet LW made low level attacks against the harbor. Typically acceptable losses for a single mission were less than 5%, closer to 1-2%. If they were over 5%, the air crews got demoralized and even brass start to worry of attrition. If I remember right, after the first 1000 bombers attack to Germany (allied casualties 7% or so), mighty 8th had a one month break in missions to Germany to re-think their approach and to re-build the morale. If one ads more flak while player numbers remain the same, the loss ratio grows unbearable resulting in loss of jabo activity and soon players. AF attacks were common tactic to prevent enemy air activity and should not be made impossible/suicidal. For example - study what allied did in Sicily campaign to keep JG77 of their back. 3. Agree 4. It is already dangerous. Problem is the 10km visual bubble. Wings of Lib has a radar on map that indicates location of enemy planes near AFs. If this could be implemented say with 20km radius on AFs and Depots... That would help the defence while still making attacks to these dangerous targets feasible. (IMO, nobody will fly lvl bombers if they can be traced more than that - again, player numbers becomes an issue to get fighter cover). 5. simple solution - death/bail out results always in a kick from the server - would increase rotation in the busy time. And bail out should be enough so as not to promote chute killing. 6. Balancing mechanisms easily creates new issues as has been seen. Even now it's hard to get enough of your own squad members to the server simultaneously - and if AF/Depots get more flak, if there is radar type prediction system etc - one needs to get even more organized than now to do some damage on these targets. For example, level bombers and fighter cover requires more players than defending a target. So here are my suggestions: 1. Paras to RED, somehow... 2. Flak re-spawn at AFs and Depots at every mission start 3. If feasible, 20km radar to AFs and depots. Ideally, I would suggest to admins to run a Gallup on possible changes on the front page of the server as here on the forum - we are few and loud 😉
  8. To the Admins: Thank you! The best server and most entertaining emulation of air war in eastern front!
  9. Okay - I read your original comment as referring to one AA gun. " No AA in the sim reliably stops jagdbombing 190s. " Sure - when you mass enough of them, you get the better result. Front AFs were not typically protected that heavily historically - sure, there was maybe more flak than what we have in a this game (which is limited by graphics and netcode performance), but there was also larger number of attackers - and some (I would guess most) would always get through. Unfortunately I don't have any statistics on this from real life - would be interesting to get some.
  10. Okay - that's a long post - thanks for explaining your view in detail. I'll try to be brief... here is how my opinion differs (and now I'm considering AF attacks mostly). LW has better planes - in first four missions or so - after that things even out. Prediction problem is the same for both sides. With 10km sight range - defending is almost always futile - only way to do this is by having significant energy advantage and usually one catches the attacker only when he turns home. Hence the performance difference of the fighters does not make big difference. If the defender does not have the E advantage, the speed difference of 10-20km/h is not going to do the trick. Bomb loads - as you pointed out, even cannons can currently take out buildings - so it does not make big difference for a JaBo if it has 500kg or 250kg bomb. Personally, I find tactics and local number of pilots most important - which brings us to balance (which is reasonably good on EU evenings when I typically fly)... Balance - I'm trying to persuade some LLv guys to fly red for the next one... no promises though yet 😉 Safe skies! It did not reliably stop anything in real life either. (In my book reliably is 90% or higher kill rate) Amen!
  11. Okay - possibly. Then again IL2 brings certain advantages in low level attacks to balance out the LW level bombing capability. But as discussion started about yesterdays events - A20 is available. As said above, this is the unbalance issue I agree to above. We agree on this one.
  12. Found it... #371 Gromoslavka captured by Paras #372 Ventsy captured (Tanks) #373 Kalach captured (Tanks) OK - I agree that we disagree. I think that it's not broken as VVS can as easily destroy blue AFs, and LW has only the same options as VVS to defend the airfields. Are you sure Paras were used? I was around Ventsy at #372 and the air was pretty thick with RED fighters - I did not see a notification of paras being landed, but I happily admit that I do not notice everything but please set me straight if you have data on this. Usually Blue dont fly any Paras unless we can get the full 60 to area, preferably in one go. I agree that this could be improved - though I still would not call avoiding AA easy... or maybe I have a flak-magnet hidden somewhere in my plane 🤣
  13. Both RED and BLUE have capability to close AFs, so I would not call that broken. Unbalanced yes, due to RED not having Paras. AF attacks are historical fact and as such they should be part of the war game we play here. Adjustment though could be needed for the flak - I would suggest re-spawning flak strength to minimum 50% at the start of every new mission and normal resupply rules should apply to higher levels of AA strength. As one could assume that fixing flak is a high priority. Just curious - how many of the 3 AFs were captured by Paras - does anyone know?
  14. Let's clarify a bit - Germans did not push back RED advance in 2 missions. First in preparation it took several missions to destroy all three RED front line AFs enough to be closed - AFAIK this started at #365 (or 366). Then the situation of the front line AFs culminated at last night (EU time) in 2-3 missions with fierce fighting from sides. By the time I stopped flying last night (#372), Gromoslavka had been captured by paras, Ventsy was still RED but German tanks were poised for a breakthrough and most of the defenses around it had been destroyed during the last 2 missions. Also Kalach was still RED during mission #372. After that, I don't have a clear picture how things evolved. But in summary - it's not 2 missions, but conscious effort of BLUE in 7+ missions. I do agree though that RED should have Paras capability - maybe PE2 with a number of paras inside? And I would argue that the number should smaller than in JU52 due to physical size, and for balance (speed difference and defensive capability).
×
×
  • Create New...